Sorry if I was out of line.

Michel

How stable is slackware compared to Debian Stable, RHL or BSD?

Thanks,

Michel

I would say Slackware and BSD are comparable in terms of stability. Debian and RHL, which do more patching of upstream software, perhaps a bit less so, although they are both considered very stable in their own right.

There's a thread about stability of Slackware vs Debian Stable and the consensus seems to be that Slackware can be marginally more stable when updating because the lack of dependency resolution doesn't result in situations where the update of one package breaks or removes another.

Kubuntu 12.04, Xubuntu 12.04 or Mint 13 - all based on LTS Ubuntu release which was good (and stable), IMHO much better than Ubuntu itself, very good repositories and newbie friendly.

If slackware is that stable, why is it not considered an enterprise distro? Separately how difficult is it to use slackware vs Debian?

thanks,

Michel

I'm not sure what you mean by being considered an "enterprise distro"* but I suspect it is because Slackware is produced by a small team and there is no official paid-for support channel. This contrasts with Red Hat (who term their product Enterprise Linux) who are a large corporation with support contracts you pay for. What this means practically, I suppose, is that you're a little more "on your own" with Slackware. Also the small development team means that some people have anxiety about using it because they fear it "may disappear" -- though in reality this is not that likely.
As to which is easiest I'll stick my head above the parapet and say that, in general, for a new user to set up and use Debian is a little quicker and easier as you have to know very little to do so. However, if you follow the install instructions for Slackware and are willing to learn you may find it easier as it is more flexible in some ways.
They often say if you learn to use Debian you're learning Debian but if you learn to use Slackware you're learning to use Linux. I'd say that's a slight exaggeration but it's broadly true enough to repeat.

*I think I know roughly what you mean but is Debian considered "enterprise"? I'd say reliability and size-wise perhaps but the fact you can't pay for it means some enterprises won't touch it. For some enterprises they have to pay for software practically by law for liability reasons.

Sorry to keep on dwelling but I want to benefit from your knowledge of slackware :-)

Is Salix as stable as slackware and as easy to use as Debian?

Is networking using samba straightforward? Can it be done through Webmin?

I need to use the following applications can I find them in the slackware repos?:

- KDE
- Libreoffice
- Chromium
- Hplip
- Webmin
- Dropbox
- Inkscape
- TrueCrypt
- Gimp
- Skype
- Avidemux

Separately is PCBSD easier to setup and use? Is it being developed by a "larger" team than slackware?

Thanks,

Michel

I don't really have anything to add to 273's answer, he pretty much nailed it there.

In my experience Salix is solid, probably at least as much as Slackware itself. Easier to get up and running quicker than Slackware-proper, and therefore about as easy as Debian. I network with samba on my Slackware box here at work just fine; not familiar with Webmin.

As for the apps you call out for Slackware: KDE is there on the installation, as is hplip and Gimp. Everything else is probably available at SlackBuilds.org.

I don't really have any experience with PC-BSD, but I hear it sets up pretty easy, nice GUI installer.

It's only a slight exaggeration. When I started with Slackware I started evolving my own "Slackware Administration" document. After a while I realised most of it was not specific to Slackware so I split it into two documents -- "Slackware Administration" and "Linux Administration". The first is ~20% the size of the second.

@ michelm, if you haven't already, try Slackware. I personally am not a fan of Ubuntu, but it was the first Linux distro i successfully got running on my first computer. I was impressed with the guis (Gnome2 and kde), but not the system its self. I found it unreliable and unstable, and considered moving back to Windows 7. The next distro i seriously tried (still a complete noob mind you, unaware even of what a text editor was) was Slackware. Slackware is what got me hooked on Linux. I'm using it now, and consider it my equal favorite distro with Debian stable, and Opensuse. I learned a lot from it, and it is not hard at all. Download the podcast 'Linux Reality'. It's a great podcast by Slackware enthusiast and contributor Chess Griffin. Download the 'special episode 1, Slackware' episode. It helped me heaps when i starte; and read the documentation. I never used to, but since learning a little about how to Slack, i read a little more. Slackware is awesome, all you need to do is give it a go.
What about Salix you ask. I don't like Salix a real lot. That is my opinion though. I like the idea though. Slackware comes with a lot of programs installed (on a full install, which is recommended). This annoys me and is one thing i particularly enjoy about Debian and Opensuse. Salix goes by the 'one program for one job' motto which i really like. Slackware doesn't have a repository comparable to Debians, or Opensuses, or most other distros. What you get on the full install is it. Because of this, third party repos are often used by Slackers, particularly slackbuilds,org, which is a fantastic resauce by other Slackers. Salix has a repo, but it is still pretty limited. Slackwares package manager, pkgtool, does not manage dependencies, so on slackbuild, any dependencies not installed on a full install, are clearly labeled. Unfortunately for Salix, their installs have made a lot of cuts in programs (deliberately) and this can cause a few issues with Slackbuilds. Salix have their own tools to try to resolve this issue and others caused by the same thing, but in my experience, their tools don't work well.

In summery, i like the idea of Salix, but i don't think it works well.
Try Slackware, you'll probably have less trouble than with Salix; and you won't regret it.

Thank you all for your insights.

I think I will give Slackware a try. I need to get a non production machine to play on.

I agree regarding Ubuntu. I tried using it on many occasions and always had issues, I also do not like Gnome that much.

Kubuntu on the other hand is a very good distro. I am using 12.04 lts and I have to admit that it has a very nice balance between ease of use, features, repos and stability. I screwed my install by installing some backports and I just did a clean vanilla reinstall that I will leave as is for now.

I find that Linux is sort of loosing its purpose a bit as I have a feeling that people who turn to Linux are not finding what they are looking for.

I left W$ because I was fed up with using one lousy OS after the other and I looked for Linux as a solution for that lack of stability / bloated software / and the need to keep on upgrading OS and hardware. My first couple of years using Linux were great, then I started realizing the core issues at play. Stick to old / outdated and stable or seek uptodate and forgo stability + reinstall every 6 month!

It seems to me that we need a 3 to 4 years stable OS with a thorough backport support to get the best of both worlds.

Michel

Use an LTS.

Regarding Ubuntu vs Kubuntu, the same issues of instability are in both because the only difference is the Desktop Environment. The fact that Kubuntu does not really have official support anymore compared to Ubuntu tells me that in the long run Ubuntu will be more stable with its DE.

12.04 is an lts but by backporting KDE 4.10 and Gimp the system became unstable, that's why I am calling for a stable lts but with a more comprehensive backporting that is well tested and well supported to keep applications uptodate without breaking the system.

Michel